It wasnt Pixar, but this exact thing happened to me as well. Founder blew tons of cash and needed to raise more so he cleared out the debt with 'new co'. Apparently his money was worth more to him than my 4 years of service.
Re:A Sociology of Steve Jobs (2011)
by newnewpdro on Sunday October 06, 2019 @03:39AM
(#21170448)
Was anything mentioned about stock grants in "New Pixar" to the wronged employees?
I presume something must have been done to right the wrong at least with the important people, otherwise they would just walk out at that point.
Ferguson writes, "During the public offering, the underwriters forced Jobs to distribute about 15 percent of the stock among key employees, because nobody would have invested otherwise...but many were shut out entirely, including some who had spent many years creating the technology."
Re:A Sociology of Steve Jobs (2011)
by scarface74 on Sunday October 06, 2019 @07:17AM
(#21171287)
https://www.cfo.com/people/2016/10/ex-cfo-tells-fascinating-...
Despite long-promised stock options that Levy had earlier persuaded a reluctant Jobs to finally grant to Pixar employees, Jobs had retained enough shares that he was now a billionaire.
I'm curious if abuses like this would sink the company if they went viral (eg. no animator/programmer would want to work for the company or would demand much higher cash compensation) or if it would be a non-issue like Equifax (who didn't seem to lose significant business, despite taking a massive post-data breach reputation hit).
I'm curious if more information transparency change the employment market.
[Charles Ferguson, High Stakes, No Prisoners pp 98-99]